Re: Unusual syntax

["Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org>]

Ahhh The bureaucracy that comes with the military. :-) I really don't know
what sort of "Official" status Ada80 had - except that a) nobody built any
compilers to that standard (at least not any that got any sort of widespread
circulation) and b) my recollection of the intent was that it was never
supposed to serve as some sort of "final" standard by which people should be
guided in developing compilers. The intent was that it was to be reviewed,
commented on and eventually revised, so in a sense it was never a "real"
standard. Clearly, for paperwork purposes, it was given a number and maybe
in some bureaucratic sense it was therefore an "Official" standard - but for
practical purposes it wasn't used that way.

Still, its an interesting bit of history and I wish I still had a copy of
it. Sadly, it became compost somewhere along the line in a fit of making
space for more junk. :-)

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com


"Jeffrey Carter" <jrcarter@acm.org> wrote in message
news:3CE9B65A.BE66B61C@acm.org...
>
> I'm no expert, but I think 1815 was a standard. That's why the revision
> is called 1815A, indicating it's a revision of the standard called 1815.
> If we'd stuck with the MIL-STD thing, Ada 95 would have been 1815B. If
> Ada 83 had been the first standard, it would simply have been 1815, and
> Ada 80 would have been a draft version of 1815.
>